Knives, baseball bats, bows, darts, and even arguably dogs were all originally made primarily for causing harm. With the exception of dogs they're almost invariably manufactured to enable causing harm. Some have had other uses developed after the fact, but they cause harm and destruction in very real and undebatable physical ways, often in their day-to-day use.
Does that mean we vilify their ownership and gradually make the many responsible owners felons for the actions of the miscreant few? I'm not going to argue that these devices are somehow as destructive as guns, but an object's design origin shouldn't nullify its value for current use.
We can do better on violence and valuing life as a race and society, but insisting it start with eliminating a set of hobbies whose participants are overwhelmingly responsible, law-abiding, and civic-minded is itself a pernicious idea.
You're accusing me of advocating things I have not. I did not in any way billing gun ownership. Nor did I in any way suggest we should eliminate "a set of hobbies whose participants are overwhelmingly responsible, law-abiding, and civic-minded".
No worries, I read it twice and realized it was an autocorrect mistake and what you'd intended. I recognize that you personally may not be calling for this, but in general individuals that do fixate on guns' capacity for harm do fall to this. I still should not have generalized.
Does that mean we vilify their ownership and gradually make the many responsible owners felons for the actions of the miscreant few? I'm not going to argue that these devices are somehow as destructive as guns, but an object's design origin shouldn't nullify its value for current use.
We can do better on violence and valuing life as a race and society, but insisting it start with eliminating a set of hobbies whose participants are overwhelmingly responsible, law-abiding, and civic-minded is itself a pernicious idea.